THE

LIBERTARIAN

ENTERPRISE

Freedom to Abort: Yes! (Rebuttal)

Proponents of womb slavery are in a quandary. Among themselves, they
disagree on where to draw lines. Any line is fine, if it supports
their pre-disposition to control the bodies of others. Some adopt the
historic line at "quickening", a subjective point at best. More modern
advocates pick the differentiation of the opposable thumb as uniquely
human; or the state of nerve development that suggests the capacity to
feel pain; or they join the medical consensus adopted by the Supreme
Court at the point of viability. As Mr. Antle observes, these are all
unsatisfactory guideposts in a continuous process from conception to
birth.

There are three minor problems with Mr. Antle's preference for
conception.

First, the "objective biological fact" is that the combination of a
sperm and egg is not necessary to produce a human being. It may be the
simplest, most pleasurable and even the best method of reproduction,
but it isn't required and therefore fails as a distinct test for
drawing lines. Every human cell has all the DNA required to produce
another human being. It's simply a matter of environment. Whether Mr.
Antle likes it or not, that dandruff flake he washed down the shower
drain this morning is every bit as human as a fertilized ovum. In the
proper environmental conditions, that single cell will begin to divide
and could become his cloned son! By his own criteria, Mr. Antle is a
mass murderer of his own "potential children" on a very grand scale.

Second, resting on purely biological grounds -- however faulty --
ignores the essential mental processes that distinguish humans
from every other mammal. Science hasn't identified the peculiar
features of mind that make humans sentient and other animals not.
Without the capacity for reason, we're all monkeys. I've already made
the case for birth as the critical event that brings the potential for
abstract reasoning to reality.

Third, drawing the line at conception invites a host of horrific
consequences. The cause of a woman's pregnancy is irrelevant if every
fertilized egg is a person. The issues of rape, incest or genetic
defect are of no relevance to the fact that the "unborn person",
according to Mr. Antle, is still a person. Yet, he urges us to ignore
these "fetal rights" when the conception is repugnant or the
consequence malicious. You can't have it both ways, Jim.

Very few people realize that most birth control pills and IUDs are
abortifacients. The don't prevent the fertilization of eggs,
only the implantation of the "pre-born baby" into the lining of the
uterus. Therefore, consistency would oblige Mr. Antle to favor a ban
on most birth control methods, not just abortion.

Further, if zygotes are legitimate persons with full rights, who will
defend those rights? The fetus can't speak for itself, so someone must
assume guardianship of the fetus' claims against a negligent or
abusive "potential mother". If the mother smokes, drinks, exercises
strenuously or tries to govern the state of Massachusetts, who will
defend the fetus against the possible "initiation of force"? Federal
Fetal Police?

Common law consistently recommends capital punishment for the
premeditated murder of another innocent person. If every fertilized
egg is a person, how can the proponents refrain from executing a woman
who gets an abortion, or causes the certain death of a fertilized egg
by birth control? The ultimate incongruity of the "pro-life" position
is that it must urge the death penalty for the woman who
willingly commits the "murder" of any fertile cell.

The freedom to abort is the only alternative to womb slavery for every
real female person.

Protect your privacy by using Anonymizer.com
Block attempts to spy on your computer and record your web browsing activity.